This very amusing, somewhat insightful but vastly overdrawn column on women overlooks a more interesting question than whether women have lost their rational minds. Rather than ponder why women swoon over Barack Obama or why Oprah has a media empire or why men make better drivers, it might be more interesting to ponder why men have fallen prey to the worst aspects of cliché feminism and emotionalized politics.
After all, a wide majority of Democratic men favor Barack Obama and apparently show no concern for the “tea with dictators” and “can’t we all get along” approach to foreign policy that may come with the deal. In some ways Hillary Clinton’s latest gambit has been to argue that Obama is a wimp who’s not man enough to take on the terrorists. She is trying to shake some sense into the fuzzy-headed Democratic electorate. (Granted that some of these male Obama voters, like the SNL skit suggests, may simply be fleeing from “Someone so annoying, so pushy, so grating, so bossy and shrill, with a personality so unpleasant, that at the end of the day [they] will have to go enough! We give up! Life is too short to deal with this awful woman!” ) It was Bill, not Hillary, who seemed to perfect the biting-the-lower lip, empathy-in-lieu of analysis style of politics.
One explanation for this mass wimp out by men is that male politicians, particularly Democrats, have simply learned to play on women’s emotions, adopting an excessively emotionalized style of politics and the language of self-help therapy that permeates feminine culture. Another is that liberal men have bought into the victimhood narrative of the women’s movement and have adopted the language and mindset of the “oppressed” while casting off that of the rational, linear “oppressor” male worldview. Whatever the explanation it seems plain that there are a lot of silly men who sound an awful lot like silly women.
Now, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, we may be heading for one of the greatest gender gaps in political history. John McCain is perhaps the politician most immune to the feminization of political language. He not only does not feel your pain, he has little patience with it. He’s not going to whisper sweet nothings in your ear; he is going to give the hard truths and tell you to buck up. (Ask the Michigan auto workers, if you have any doubt.) By contrast, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, we are going to hear plenty about inclusion, less about confrontation and more about “dialogue” in both domestic and foreign policy. There is no problem too big for an encounter group. If Hillary is the nominee we will get more of the woe is me/fighting against the mean men complaints sprinkled with a heavy dose of “win one for the sister” identity politics. Let’s hope enough women (and men) haven’t lost their minds entirely as they assess the demands of a real world in which talk, conciliation and tears don’t work magic.
Quote: “That is why they think unprovoked shelling of Israel is justified (even if it means more Israeli attacks on their own homes)”.
Response: Don’t you think that a total blockade on food, fuel and medicine is very provocative on Israel’s part??? Is that not a declaration of war from Israel? Why did they blockade Gaza? ? Because Gaza had the nerve to democratically elect a government that Israel does not like.
Hamas fires toy rockets into Israel that Israel ALWAYS retaliated against. The big invasion was plan long in advanced and timed before Obama comes into office. Rocket fire is just an excuse.
Israel, I suspect (I am keen on military technology), has the capability to shoot down these slow homemade rockets with long exhaust trails. Israel was able to shoot down much faster Scud rockets from Iraq during the First Gulf War.
Quote: “..and why they are far less concerned with the fate of Israeli casualties than the Israelis are with Palestinian ones.”
A big lie and you know it. Yes, they hate the land graping Jews and don’t care for Jewish casualties, but the other side, having overwhelming military advantage can always take care not to target civilians but civilian casualties are almost always high.
After 60 years of conflict in the Middle East you would be a fool or liar if you believe that Israel has great intentions of not targeting civilians. Are you really sincere in this delusional belief???
One way to get Arab villagers to leave their homes in 1948 was through terror. Today it’s the same, except that TV cameras are always on, so Israel says, “we hit this UN sanctuary by mistake”.
If they target terrorists exclusively, then the civilian casualties would be much much much lower. The high figure is a way to instill fear in the natives.
You are also entitled to ask why water obeys gravity. You know the answer to both questions and, moreover, you suspect you know that it will ever be thus. Agenda-driven ‘journalism’ is what it is, and Israel will simply have to deal with it.
By the way, Big Picture. Evidently your big picture analysis doesn’t include economics, otherwise you wouldn’t suggest using multi-million dollar Patriot missile systems to intercept dime-a-dozen Kassam rockets. As if it is Israel’s responsibility to spare no expense to minimize the impact of their own policies on the Palestinians?
Yes, you are right, but I also though about it already. Certainly its better to make war on civilians than to spend millions on Patriot missile launches (hahaha).
The same guidance technology can be connected to a Phalanx defense system. The Phalanx system will shoot off thousands of rounds of 20mm cannon shells in a few seconds!!! Amazing stuff. It is not too difficult to shoot down these homemade rockets with such a system.
They use this system to protect American navy ships against incoming cruise missiles.
Installing a few dozen of these systems at the Gaza border will do wonders.
The big-ass-tiny-pic dares use such words as “big lie” abt others than itself. Sheesh.
Hey, Almasov,
Then tell us about the big truth. I dare you.
BIG PICTURE – “total blockade on food, fuel and medicine”? You’ve been sorely misinformed. Regardless of whether Israel should or should not have actually put such a blockade in place – there never was one. Trucks with enormous amount of olive oil, flour, chickpeas, fuel, medical equipment, etc were brought into Gaza DAILY for years. These trucks were only halted for days at a time, ever – when rockets were fired at Israel during the “ceasefire.” But sometimes not even then. So you have been sorely misinformed. The border crossings were not simply open to civilian movement – so? They aren’t open between Israel and Lebanon either – are we blockading them – or do they perhaps border another country, too…?
Second, you think the reason for this imaginary blockade of yours is that “Gaza had the nerve to democratically elect a government that Israel does not like.” No. They elected a government that effectively, and publicly declared war on Israel. Since when does a country have to supply their enemy with anything? Since when do they need to open borders? Moreover, calling it democratic is ridiculous. There is nothing democratic about Hamas. Nothing. Winning the popular vote does NOT mean you are a democratic regime.
#1. 4 – largely unmitigated nonsense, especially the baseless speculations about civilian casualties and collateral damage, but also the double-stacked inanities of
The SCUD is a transatmospheric missile – a “rocket” only in the broad usage. Originally designed as an anti-aircraft weapon, the Patriot in anti-missile mode was intended to destroy SCUDs after they re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere. The example has near-zero relevance to Hamas terror rocketry.
The Phalanx is a point defense system, not an area defense. Apparently, you imagine a dense chain or network of Phalanxes all along the Israel-Gaza border providing blanket coverage. It’s a ludicrous notion. Even if it was practical on any level, a non-trivial percentage of the 1000s and 1000s of shells would fail to detonate – meaning that they would land somewhere, among other things providing a basis for assertively ignorant fools to claim that terrorizing the civilian population was the “real” goal all along. The metal fragments from the shells that did explode as designed would rain down as well. I don’t think you’d want to be standing below, even with an unusually sturdy umbrella.
Of course, it’s a total fantasy, but, then again, so is your cost-less anti-terror campaign.
Could Hartland and Big Picture post simultaneously? They seem a bit similar.
To LB,
You minimize the effect of the blockade, but the reason that many trucks are allowed in is to provide the basics so that the people don’t starve to death. Israel blocks EVERTHING and allows in only what she deems allowable. If that’s not a blockade and a declaration of war, then tell me if you would take that lying down? Tell me.
You also say ‘since when does a country have to supply an enemy with anything’. Yes, that the hard nosed ‘a good Indian is a dead Indian’ attitude.
So go ahead and commit genocide through starvation. The r cameras are rolling and genocide gives anybody a bad name.
To MacLeod,
You are right. I never said that Israel should use Patriot missiles against homemade rockets. I said that I suspect that Israel has the technology to do such a task.
As for Phalanx cannon fire hitting civilians, that is possible, but the shells can be fused and they explode in air. That’s one solution. There are many other solutions. One is the use of intense laser beams. They have tested such a system recently against big missiles. So I think that it would be much easier to use against small rockets.
How can you call Dina Kraft’s New York times article fairminded when she undeniably attributes the deaths of the Gazan doctor’s daughters and niece to Israeli fire? Israeli TV, as well as a number of blogs have reported that a medical examination revealed that the daughters may have been killed by a qassam or grad missile.
I’ll tell ya, Commentary, keep it up. Show us what genocial, psychopatic, blood-lusting war freaks you really are. People are watching this time, and the Bund‘s support is perched on a cliff.
BigPucture, I enjoy how a minute ago were a military expert and now that those anti-missile suggestions have been proverbially shot down, you’re recommending lasers. It would beg the question – do you even know what you’re talking about with regards to the “blockade.”